Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15587 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANGAL SHARMA S/O SHRI GORISHANKAR SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 02
RAHINAGAR, NEAR RAGHUVANSHI COLONY DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI L.S. CHANDIRMANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
PARDESIPURA DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. HANSA W/O LATE SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
258/15 JHANDA CHOWK NANDANAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA - G.A FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.564/2018 dated 02.11.2018 and final report No.604/2019 dated 07.10.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the present petitioners.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 25-04-2023 11:51:39 2Counsel for petitioner submits that the petition u/S.482 filed by co-accused persons in the same crime case by Gyarsilal @ Gudi and others in M.Cr.C. No.4375/2023 has been allowed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of suicide note of deceased as many as twenty persons have been made accused in the offence. In the suicide note, he had only mentioned the name of present petitioner for that he took loan from the petitioner and he was unable to repay the same and thereafter he committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance - sulphus. Apart from that there is no allegation against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that against the framing of charge under Section 306 read with 120-B of IPC similarly placed co-accused persons namely; Umakant Goyal, Mukesh and Subhash have filed the Criminal Revision No.657/2021, Criminal Revision No.1940/2021 and Criminal Revision No.2669/2021 respectively. The said revision petitions have been allowed and the charges framed under Section 306 r/w 120-B of IPC has been set-aside.
Counsel for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts that the allegations against the present petitioner is identical to the co-accused persons who had filed the aforesaid criminal revisions. He submits that in a long suicide note the deceased had mentioned the name of present petitioner only that the deceased had taken loan from these persons only but he had made some allegations against one Pankaj Chaiwala for harassment not against the present petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not available in the present case. He has referred few decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court for the purpose of disposal of this case.
In the case of M. Arjunan vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315, the Apex Court held as follows:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 25-04-2023 11:51:39 37. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.
8. In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O.1- letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant- deceased.
Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction of the appellant- accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
In Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1994 JLJ
758), while dealing with the ambit scope and applicability of section 107 0f IPC, it has been held as under:-
"œ10. As per definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code abetment is constituted by:-
i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or
ii) engaging' in a conspiracy to commit it; or
iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit it Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 25-04-2023 11:51:39 4
11. A person is said to 'instigate; another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. In the present case none of the accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or Âœurged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. On the other hand they wanted the loan advanced by them to the deceased to be repaid by him. For the said purpose, it was at least needed, if not essential, that Ramesh Kumar Sadholia should live. "
In the case of Dinesh vs. State of M.P. (MPWN 103) , while dealing with similar facts, it has been held as follows:-
8 - If the deceased was being unduly pressurized to repay the loan and he felt harassed then he ought to have taken recourse to law by lodging a report against the petitioner and other persons that they are threatening to kill him for nonpayment of loan.
The deceased instead of pursuing a legal remedy had committed suicide, obviously to put the petitioner and his other tormentors into hot waters. Be that as it may, a case for abetment to commit suicide is not at all made out against the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 has opined as under :-
Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 25-04-2023 11:51:39 5 instigation the word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea it is in a fit of anger and emotion.
In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay (supra) the accused allegedly told the deceased "to go and die" yet Apex Court opined that it does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". In the instant case, if story of the prosecution is read and believed as such, it would be clear that the appellants did not in any manner instigate the deceased to commit suicide. There is no element of "incitement" or "instigation"
on their behalf. Thus, Section 306 of the IPC is not attracted against the appellants.
The ancillary question is whether their acts fall within the ambit of Section 306 of the IPC. In Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750, the Apex Court opined as under :-
17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overtact of accused person Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 25-04-2023 11:51:39 6 must be of such a nature where the victim had no option but to commit suicide.
Even assuming that the appellants mounted pressure upon the deceased to repay the Bank defalcated amount, this does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation".
This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar and held as under :-
10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would commit suicide.
As per the prosecution case when deceased was going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence it cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or intention that deceased should commit suicide. There is no evidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants threatened to kill the deceased and his father Jagdish they were armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased was so frightened that he had no option left except committing suicide and was compelled to do so.
In light of the allegations made in the suicide note of deceased against the petitioners and the law laid by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and also considering the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Revision No.657/2021, Criminal Revision No.1940/2021 and Criminal Revision No.2669/2021, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR so Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 25-04-2023 11:51:39 7 far it relates to the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 and 120-B of IPC and consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Their bail bonds, if any, stands discharged.
With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for its compliance.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 25-04-2023 11:51:39